It may seem rather odd that Pope Benedict XVI?has expended so much energy on rules about the use of the old “Latin Mass” – after all, it would appear that most Catholics are content with the modern liturgy in the vernacular. [Which, to date, they really have never experienced. The new translation will help to change that. But… quaeritur…] Why, then, yet another set of rules from Rome in this Instruction?

The answer is found in the fact that, as the Instruction insists, the older rites are a “precious treasure to be preserved,” and that the Holy Father wants to offer this treasure “to all the faithful”, not as a quaint museum piece but as a living source of life and grace for the whole Church of today and into the future. All laity, clergy and religious should have access to its diverse riches. [The clear implication is that all should be exposed to the traditional Form.]

These latest rules envisage the inclusion of recent saints and some new texts in the older liturgy. They even foresee new editions of the missal and other liturgical books of the older rites: the older liturgy will continue to exist [attetnion…] and develop as it has over the centuries up until the Second Vatican Council. But it cannot, however, now have certain modern practices (altar girls, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, etc) imposed on it. Its integrity is guaranteed. [NB: He doesn’t seem to think that the inclusion of new texts puts its “integrity” at risk. Neither do I, depending on the texts, of course. How can the inclusion of new saints harm its integrity? How can the option of some additional prefaces be harmful?]

Of course, there are historical realities behind this Instruction and the 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum which it clarifies. [1] In the first place there is the controversy over the liturgical changes that followed the Council. [Many changes were not foreseen by the mandates of the Council Fathers. But… quaeritur…] Were they a legitimate development or did they involve a rupture with tradition? Neither of these documents settles that question, but the Instruction does, significantly, speak of the development of the Missale Romanum “until the time of Blessed Pope John XXIII” and of the “new Missal” approved for the Church in 1970 by Paul VI. [Sounds rather like a rupture. No?] This authoritative recognition of a clear distinction between the two – both of which, the Instruction maintains, must be seen to be legitimate and valid – does admit a clear “difference” between that of Paul VI and what came before. Discussion of the implications of this will continue. [Ever since Summorum Pontificum came out, I have argued that the Pope provided a juridical solution to the relationship of the EF and OF, but he did not settle the issue of whether there were two distinct rites. In Universae Ecclesiae, which moves the discussion into more theological grounds, with its reference to Summorum Pontificum as part of the Holy Father’s Magisterium, perhaps we are moving closer to an answer.]

[2] And then there is the more recent historical reality of widespread opposition to the use of older liturgical rites (not just the Mass, but the sacraments and the blessings and so on, as the Instruction makes clear) on the part of bishops, religious superiors and priests. That is why the Instruction was necessary: even after Summorum Pontificum established that in Church law everyone who wants the older liturgy is entitled to it, this opposition continued, sometimes [often] from high-ranking prelates. This Instruction underlines these rights and makes explicit what was implicit in Summorum Pontificum, namely that if these rights are denied Catholics, be they laity or clergy, have the right of appeal (“recourse”) according to the norms of canon law. It is unusual for Rome to advertise this in an Instruction, but in the light of the opposition it seems necessary.

One of the principal areas of dispute has been what constitutes the “stable group” that is required to request regular public celebrations of the old liturgy. The Instruction dismisses the various straw men put up since Summorum Pontificum in order to block requests for the older liturgy and insists that these groups can be small, can come from different parishes or even dioceses and that they can exist only for the purpose of worshipping the old rites. [And let it not be forgotten that the priest himself can be part of the small, stable group.]

This generosity of interpretation, which runs throughout the Instruction, is a fundamental principle in interpreting canon law: when ecclesiastical authority (the Pope in Summorum Pontificum) grants a favour for the good of people (the continued use of the older liturgy) it is to be applied generously and not restrictively. [odiosa restringenda, favorabilia amplianda]

One issue not resolved by this Instruction is what the older rites are to be called. It uses “ordinary form” and “extraordinary form” as well as “Antiquior Usus” (the “more ancient use”) of the Roman rite. [NB]Some commentators have insisted on an interpretation of “extraordinary” that is quite pejorative: the older rites have been regarded as an eccentric relative, mention of whose existence brings about a knowing smile and with whom close contact is seen as a risk. There is no foundation for this in either Summorum Pontificum or this Instruction. The terms “ordinary” and “extraordinary” are used in a sense of what is statistically normative, that is all. [Well… okay. That is a good guess at what the Instruction means by Ordinary, though the Instruction does not say… which in itself is very interesting. The Instruction does say, however, that the two forms are “alongside” one another.] Indeed, in the Latin text “ordinaria” and “extraordinaria” are not capitalised, whereas “Antiquior Usus” is. Given the derogatory use to which “extraordinary form” has been put, it is probably time to set it aside in favour of “the more ancient rites” or some such terminology. [A matter for discussion.]

There are, I suggest, two areas in which the Instruction is weak. [1] The first is in its assertion that seminarians should be given the opportunity to learn the older rites “where pastoral needs suggest it”. Some bishops will use the latitude permitted here to exclude such formation from seminaries. That will only serve to impoverish seminarians’ overall liturgical formation, for regardless of whether a diocese has a clear “pastoral” demand for the older rites, experience and knowledge of them on the part of future priests cannot but serve to enrich their grasp of liturgical theology and spirituality, and lay a good foundation for their liturgical ministry, even – perhaps especially – in the new rites. [I agree. This is a weakness. However, it is understandable that in Japan there may not be quite as pressing a need as, for example, at Allen Hall or the North American College. “But Father! But Father!”, I can hear the traddies yelling. “Japan needs the old Mass too!”. Yes, I agree. It does. It is a global need. But we build brick by brick. Still, I think that paragraph was a bit bloodless..]

[2] The other weakness is the Instruction’s curious restriction of the older rites of ordination to those communities supervised by the Ecclesia Dei commission in Rome. This denies diocesan bishops the pastoral freedom to judge which rite of ordination is best; it may discourage vocations. Priests have this freedom in respect of celebrations of the Mass and other sacraments: why this ungenerous restriction on bishops? [I have argued that most seminarians would want to be ordained in the older form.] Also, communities who are not under the Roman commission but who permanently use the older liturgy in accordance with Summorum Pontificum could find themselves having to use the new ordination rites. This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed. [I hope that, soon, a diocesan bishop asks the PCED to grant permission for him to ordain his diocesan priests with the older book.]

These concerns aside, the Instruction Universæ Ecclesiæ underlines the fact that the older Roman rites are here to stay. When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope I wrote that “there is little doubt that we shall see freedom granted to the traditional Latin Mass”. That has now more than come to pass, and decisively. [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

It may seem strange that this matter is a priority for Pope Benedict. But we need to remember, as he wrote in 1997, that “the true celebration of the sacred liturgy is the centre of any renewal of the Church whatever”. In the Holy Father’s judgment, free access to the Usus Antiquior is a necessary component of such renewal. [I call it “the tip of the spear”.]

Dr Alcuin Reid is a cleric of the Diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France, and editor of Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described

Good analysis and he is surely correct about most of his points. Even his guesses are rooted in sound reasons.

The freeing of the EF Mass and sacraments is needed for pastoral care of the faithful. However, conferring Holy Orders in the Usus Antiquior is not a “need” but a “want.” And bishops would then be in a difficult position if petitioned by seminarians. The bishops who didn’t want to ordain in the Extraordinary Form would be the bad guys, so to speak. I think the Holy Father was very wise, in this respect. As things stand, bishops who have no desire, at all, for the EF Mass, are not in any way obligated to get involved–it is a matter for pastors to decide on their own. But once you say you are going to make EF Ordination an option, you necessarily involve the Diocesan Bishop in something he may want no part of, and that is a fight which the Holy Father wisely decided should be left to another day.

“There won’t be a New Evangelization without a renewal of our worship. ”

How true! I will be confirmed soon, and in the last few years I have noticed marked improvements in the liturgy of my own parrish. Part of it (I think) has to do with the both forms of the Roman Rite being offered at my church. Liturgical osmosis:)

I have a wonderful Nat’l Geographic photo from the 1970’s. The photo is from Communist China, someplace somewhere. You should see the beauty captured by the camera lense. There are altar rails, fiddlebacks, icons, and high-altars. Long have I quipped, “Aparently the ‘reforms’ didn’t apply to the rural Chinese.”

The freeing of the EF Mass and sacraments is needed for pastoral care of the faithful.

Father Sotelo, I can agree with the above statement to a point, but am left wondering if there is more to it. Is the purpose of the Mass exclusively, or even primarily to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful?

If so, why can’t I fulfill my spiritual needs on Sunday by saying a Rosary at halftime while sitting in my Barco lounger?

I, too, found it quite curious that they restricted the use of the EF form of ordination. While I am sure that if a bishop asked permission it would be granted, the document doesn’t promote its general use. Then again, I do agree with what Fr. Sotelo said above. One fight at a time.

Father will you ever do an article on the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, and compare that to both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form. I just read that in England the texts that the Ordinariates in England and Wales will use, has been finalized, and is just waiting for approval from Rome. [I don’t have a book with the Anglican Use. Perhaps it is one line. But I’ll bet a reader could put them side by side in a table format for me.]

Dr. Reid’s conclusion that communities not under the PCED, but which regularly use the 1962 liturgical books, may not be able to avail themselves of the older rite of ordination seems to conflict with the language of Paragraph 31 which provides that in Institutes and Societies under the PCED “and in those which use the liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria” the older rite may be used. The anomaly which Reid perceives does not seem to be borne out in the language of the provision.

Not that I’ll be around to see it celebrated, at least not on earth. However, I hope one day that all the travails of the present age will yield one use. To coin a phrase for a generation to come: One Rite; one Use!

From the article:
“after all, it would appear most Catholics are content with the modern liturgy in the vernacular.”

Mass atenndance in the U.S. is at 25%. 75% of Catholics do not go to Mass. That is a colossal proof of total failure. It is not just a majority like 51%, but 75%. It not two-thirds, but 75%.

3 out of 4 Catholics do not go to Mass and are not content with the modern liturgy in the vernacular. Catholics have voted with their feet and do not go to the new rite and new Mass.
3 out of 4 Catholics have stopped practicing the faith or have become Protestants.

Speaking about forms and rites is indeed interesting. Since October i follow the Ambrosian usus antiquior on Sundays; the rite does not have Judica me (but begins with Introibo), no (or different) Kyrie, no Agnus Dei, Credo after the offertorium has begun, but before the Canon (which is almost exactly the same as the Roman) and other minor differences (in Mass; then comes other things such as six weeks of Advent and no Ash Wednesday, as in the really old Roman rite). In the Confiteor, following the confession and before “misereatur …”, “Deo gratias!” is added, and I can’t stop meditating, Sunday after Sunday, about the beauty in how the Church rejoices at the confession of sins before remitting them (ALL of them, as it is said “… et dimissis omnibus peccatis vestris …”). I really do love our local Rite. All of this just to say that the ancient Ambrosian rite is – feels? – closer to the traditional Roman rite than to either of the reformed rites. I’d say that between the usus antiquior and usus reformatus of the Roman rite, the differences are bigger than between the Ambrosian and Roman rites. I really do hope that people like Dr Reid will dwell more on this for the edification of us all. Perhaps something from you, don Zeta?

Ever since Summorum Pontificum came out, I have argued that the Pope provided a juridical solution to the relationship of the EF and OF, but he did not settle the issue of whether there were two distinct rites.

But Summorum Pontificum says:

They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

If the Holy Father said that the missal of Paul VI and the missal of Pius V/John XXIII are two usages of one rite, how did he fail to settle the question of whether they are two distinct rites? Doesn’t he in fact make it clear that they are two usages of the one Roman rite?

[I made a distinction. “Juridical”. I also indicate that the new Instruction has given us more to think about. ]

No matter how small the stable group of faithful is, I’m certain ONE does not count as such a group. I’m pretty certain that I’m the only one in my parish who asks for the older form of Holy Mass. And this is unfortunate, as I feel I have an attachment to these older forms, though I have had very few chances to attend them in my diocese. It also messes with my discernment to religious vocations of any kind, as there seem to be very few clerics who understand my attachment to these older forms, and as I don’t get the opportunity to expeience the older forms I would probably never be accepted by orders/institutes that specialize in them.

MichaelJ: Yes, the Mass, or Divine Liturgy, primarily exists to serve the spiritual needs of the faithful (the clergy are also faithful, although they are not lay faithful). The liturgy, in Western or Eastern forms, certainly is not serving some need that God has. It is the faithful who have need, first, to render glory to God (extrinsic, coming from creatures, as opposed to intrinsic, which He possesses in Himself). Then, the faithful have need to edify the Mystical Body of Christ, Holy Church. Finally, the faithful have need to work out their personal salvation in fear and trembling.

You asked, “If so, why can’t I fulfill my spiritual needs on Sunday by saying a Rosary at halftime while sitting in my Barco lounger?” You could, if Our Lord had stipulated this. But insofar as He commanded at the Last Supper, and the Apostles testify to this in their preaching and practice, that the Mass is the means to accomplish the re-presentation of Calvary for the ends stated above (and not your Rosary recited in your Barco lounger), then that is what the Church orders as being of positive divine law and ecclesiastical law binding on the faithful.

Father Sotelo.
I’ll have to think a bit more about what you say. Something still strikes me as “not quite right” or missing. Perhaps it is the use of the word “need”, or my own misunderstanding, but your response seems to indicate that:
1. God is indifferent to how we worhip Him
2. The liturgy is not a “treasure to be preserved” but instead a tool to be used (and modified or even discarded at will) to meet the needs of Man.

On the surface this is a reasonable question and I agree with it in principle. The answer, I believe, lies in the translations. If horribly bland ICEL texts are used for the readings or prefaces then the damage to the TLM could be severe.

If horribly bland ICEL texts are used for the readings or prefaces then the damage to the TLM could be severe.

But of course, for the TLM, the Latin originals of the new prefaces would be used. However one feels about the general question, in Latin many of these prefaces have the same kind of structure, depth, and elegance as the familiar TLM prefaces and, moreover, the much better corrected translations are now available for those who’d want to follow them in English .

MichaelJ:
Perhaps you are extrapolating from my post because you believe God wishes to be worshipped according to a particular form (the EF Mass?). When my post doesn’t go in that direction, maybe you think I paint God as “indifferent”? I think that the Mass or Divine Liturgy, offered well by the priest and prayed well by the people, is extremely important to God. But no, I don’t think God is going to favor one form over another.

As far as the liturgy as treasure, I agree, except not as a museum piece, not as an artifact which stands apart from the work of salvation of souls. And the liturgy as treasure, to me, extends to all the rites and forms. The Mozarbic form is a treasure. The Byzantine rite is a treasure. And even the OF Mass is a treasure. But each form of the liturgy, in the respective rites, is a treasure because by that means, God is glorified, the Church is built up, and souls are saved. The liturgy is not a treasure in the sense of a Faberge egg. Its value as treasure is because it has a purpose for us, the people, in God’s plan. And when we, the people, after the End and the General Judgment, no longer need the liturgy, it ceases and has no more existence.

And so, yes, God will “discard” the liturgy when it is no longer necessary after the end of the world, not in a contemptuous way, but like all things, “the old order has passed away. See, I make all things new. I am the Alpha and the Omega.” Or to use the words of Our Lord, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The liturgy serves God insofar as God and the Church use it for the sanctification of souls. If the liturgy did not serve God for the good of souls, it would neither be a treasure, nor would it be worth preserving.

I am not keen on the term, “Extraordinary form”. I’ve taken to calling it the “Elder form of the rite”.

Search Fr. Z’s Blog

Search for:

BACK TO SCHOOL SHOPPING? Please, come here first!

Enter Amazon through my search box and I will get a small percentage of what you spend. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)Amazon.com WidgetsPS: I added Amazon Search Boxes for the UK and for Canada at the bottom of the blog page. Copy and paste titles I mention into those boxes and - BAZINGA! - results appear as if by magic.
Kindle? HERE

“This blog is like a fusion of the Baroque ‘salon’ with its well-tuned harpsichord around which polite society gathered for entertainment and edification and, on the other hand, a Wild West “saloon” with its out-of-tune piano and swinging doors, where everyone has a gun and something to say. Nevertheless, we try to point our discussions back to what it is to be Catholic in this increasingly difficult age, to love God, and how to get to heaven.” – Fr. Z

Some words of wisdom…

The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

"We as Catholics have not properly combated (the culture) because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention... What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity... Charity means speaking the truth. I have encountered it (not speaking the truth) many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence — people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not 'politically correct.' But we cannot be silent any longer."

Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee) and Norcia (beer)!

出る杭は打たれ!

Without you, there is no blog.

There is a subscription form at the bottom of this page!

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

- Nehemiah 4:18

"Where priest and people together face the same way, what we have is a cosmic orientation and also in interpretation of the Eucharist in terms of resurrection and trinitarian theology. Hence it is also an interpretation in terms of parousia, a theology of hope, in which every Mass is an approach to the return of Christ."

"In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. ... If all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians." CDF 2003

One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting.
— C. S. Lewis

Ham Radio Stuff

Fr. Z - W9FRZ - OFFQRV on: 00m 00000
Check Echolink WB0YLE-R - OFF

For contemplation…

"One of the few things in life you can be absolutely sure about is that, if Management tells you it doesn't like your Tone, you are getting something right."

"Latin is a precise, essential language. It will be abandoned, not because it is unsuitable for the new requirements of progress, but because the new men will not be suitable for it. When the age of demagogues and charlatans begins, a language like Latin will no longer be useful, and any oaf will be able to give a speech in public and talk in such a way that he will not be kicked off the stage. The secret to this will consist in the fact that, by making use of words that are general, elusive, and sound good, he will be able to speak for an hour without saying anything. With Latin, this is impossible."

- - Giovanni Guareschi

Support them with prayer and fasting.

Click for Car Magnets

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Some OBLIGATORY reading…

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

WDTPRS

020 8133 4535

651-447-6265

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

A great hymnal…

Mystic Monk Coffee also has TEA!

Because it matters what children read…

I carry one of these super-strong rosaries in my spare mag pouch! The Swiss Guards have them too!

The Swiss Guard have these rosaries!For the story clickHERE and HERE (esp. 18:00)

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

My wish lists

Main Wishlist Kindle WishlistAudio WishlistHam Radio ListNEW

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Francis Card. George

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

Please follow me on Twitter!

Help support Fr. Z’s Gospel of Life work at no cost to you. Do you need a Real Estate Agent? Calling these people is the FIRST thing you should do!

They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!

"It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been committed for fear of not looking sufficiently progressive."

Charles Pierre PéguyNotre Patrie, 1905

"If I ought to write the truth, I am of the mind that I ought to flee all meetings of bishops, because I have never seen any happy or satisfactory outcome to any council, nor one that has deterred evils more than it has occasioned their acceptance and growth."

St. Gregory Nazianzus
ep. 131 - AD 382

“We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women. If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

To set up a recurring, monthly donation via PAYPAL (even a small one) go to the bottom of this blog and look for the drop down menu! If you prefer, I also have a clearXchange account. Do you want yet another alternative to PayPal? I have set up an account with
CONTINUE TO GIVE
Get a link to donate via CONTINUE TO GIVE using your smart phone.
SEND MESSAGE:
4827563
TO:
715-803-4772
They take a larger percent taste, but they are an alternative.

I remember benefactors in my prayers and periodically say Mass for your intention.

This catechism helped to bring Fr. Z into the Catholic Church!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

What people say…

"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."

- Kractivism

"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"

- Michael Sean Winters

"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."

- Anna Arco

“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”

- Comment

"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."

- Sam Rocha

"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."

- Comment

"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."

- Anonymous

Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD

- Comment

Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.

Support Military Chaplains!

Click to donate

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Canadian Amazon Search Box

More stuff…

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

Admin Stuff

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Catholic Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own. Opinions expressed by commentators in the comments belong to the commentators.